REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

For Siggy: Interesting reading

POSTED BY: FLETCH2
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 03:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 612
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 14, 2008 11:06 AM

FLETCH2



http://www.techforce.com.br/index.php/news/linux_blog/scientific_study
_about_debian_governance_and_organization


Quote:



One reason why community forms of production have not received as much attention as traditional capitalist forms is their inability to resolve problems of power, authority and governance.

With ethnographic research, the authors showed how a production community designed a governance system that incorporates a constitutionally endowed basis of authority with democratic mechanisms to ensure control by the majority, with shifting conceptions of authority and meritocracy over time.

Relatively little is known about the process of organizing in communities – how social groups accomplish the critical task of coordinating the actions of multiple individuals to achieve important outcomes.

The research takes a step toward filling this gap by examining how a social group designs a shared basis of authority and thus, a governance system.

The authors' examination of the emergence of a governance system in an open source software community shows how a community uses a formal bureaucratic basis of authority to reinforce the community’s meritocratic norms.

However, this approach depends upon democratic mechanisms that not only limit that basis of authority, but allows the system to adapt with members’ changing interpretation of leadership.

The authors find that while technical proficiency is an important criteria for leadership in such a group, it is not sufficient. Despite espoused preferences for ‘hands-off leaders,’ skill in building the organization becomes increasingly important over time.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 2:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Dear heavens, that sounds fascinating, but I can't quite wrap my brain around WTF he's saying, I think I get some of it, but just can't mentally get a grip on the picture he's painting there...

Anyone wanna break that down into captain dummy talk for me ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 4:30 PM

FLETCH2


I'll give it a go.

This is a study in what we used to call organizational dynamics -- how organizations are structured and work to solve problems. As they say in the opening this field has tended to concentrate on capitalist organizations -- ie ones where there were not all the people in the organization where considered equal. Outside of that there has been some theoretical work --- I suspect your anarchist society stuff has been unanalyzed at some point.

This study is looking at community based producers -- that's shorthand for where a group of folks with equal standing come together to work on a big collaborative venture -- it could apply to your local drama group or (and of interest to Siggy) a cooperative.

Specifically it's looking how governance and authority operates in a society made up of equals, in this case using a free software project as the focus of the study.

Now from our perspective this study crosses several of our threads. It's most directly applicable to Siggy's cooperative, but it butts onto questions of self governance, sources of authority, and how self organizing groups of equals might distribute power and responsibilities to tackle big projects.

They seem to be a little caught up in a concept called structural or positional authority. In essence when a group gets too big for monkey sphere stuff it starts to build a bureaucracy -- it might not call it that but that's what it is. If you work for Megacorp your CEO probably doesnt know you from Adam because you are not in his monkey sphere, but his next level of managers is in his sphere and their sphere includes the managers a level down and so on. So in a Kevin Bacon kind of way your monkey sphere and his touch through intermediaries -- that's ultimately what a Bureaucracy does.

Now part of the idea of a bureaucracy is positional authority, your boss gets to tell you what to do because he's your boss, not because he won your personal respect or because he's your buddy. He can be replaced and the authority stays with the position and not with the man.

Now in theory a group made up of equals should be a meritocracy, you follow the guy that won your respect for what he can do and not his job title. So on the face of it you shouldn't have positional authority at all. Problem with that is it's unstable and it appears over time that groups of individuals do create positions of authority to insure that things get done.

This group got to that stage, decided that the guy running things had too much power and wrote a constitution that limited his power, created competing centers of power and a mechanism for direct democratic action as a (little used) over ride.

The study then looks at the kind of people that got elected to the top job over a number of years. Early on it's guys that are technically quite apt and which the meritocracy model would expect to be the ones in charge -- the folks that could win respect by what they know. But as the system evolved the folks that ended up running things were the ones with the better skills at organizing and motivating people -- folks who didn't necessarily win respect by what they knew as by how they dealt with people.

However when asked about preferences, most members preferred technically adept folks to be in charge --- even though they didn't actually elect them.

If you think on it all societies are are groups of people cooperating towards a common goal. The side references show various ways that people might structure a society based on things like tradition or religion. However this case is absent those things, it's a self selecting group of people free to leave at any time and not forced to stay together by geography. So it's a purer case study than groups that might have family or tribal ties. As such how this group operates can also be considered a less distorted template of how other societies get from monkey sphere to dealing with larger common projects.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Thanks, yeah, that's a little easier to grok for me, very much appreciated.

It seems this study takes up where Kropotkins Mutual Aid tapers off, carrying the dynamics forward, but was this with folks who already had pre existing notions or leanings toward such a system ?

Just curious about that bit, cause folks do tend to gravitate to what has worked previously or they have known from within their own experience, just by conservation of effort, you know.

Our little cabal runs in a fashion similar to but not quite exactly a meritocracy, is there such a thing as a skillocracy ?

Like where a certain task is automatically relegated to the person most proficient in it, and everyone else nearby or available operates as their speak carriers and assistants - but only that specific task, after which things dissolve to a more equals in arms fluid form ?

I dunno, would swarm theory kind of apply to that ?

This is a bit out of my expertise, but something I obviously have a keen interest in exploring here.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:36 PM

FLETCH2


The article gives a brief group history. Debian is what is known as a Linux distribution, that is a collection of programs and utilities that make up a "package" of software and applications similar to Microsoft Windows. Now some parts of it they write themselves, some of it they take as whole cloth from other developers and just repackage and some of it they have to adapt to work with their other software. The aim is to make a freely available, free to own and use computer system for the benefit of everyone. While of course the people working on it benefit themselves from the software they write open software is by it['s nature a "common good," style of project, with those that can doing it for the communial benefit.

The original founder of the project ran things as an autocracy. That doesn't tend to be unusual in these kinds of projects since the usually start as one guy's personal thing and then others volunteer to help. It ran with basically just him in charge for a number of years then he moved on, picked a successor from his close lieutenants and walked. In societal terms I suppose you would see it like a monarchy, except people were free to leave when they liked. The new leader tried to expand his power base and had a minor rebellion resulting in him being asked to step down and a constitution being written. After that leaders were elected.

My dad was a works electrician but out of hours if someone had wiring problems in their house he would go around and fix it. Likewise when we needed them we have had folks help us with building work, plumbing etc. As I may have mentioned before we are a big family and so almost any skill you need is available within the extended family group. In those situations your skillocracy is exactly what happens, the guy that knows the stuff calls the shots and the other guy works as a labourer even if he's the expert in his own field.

A big difference is that these are projects of limited duration and usually with an immediate tangible benefit to one or more of the folks. At the very least there is some expectation of reciprocation --- it's like Amish barn raising you get the manpower to raise your barn in the understanding that you are there to help your neighbor with his.

The Debian example is NOT that kind of arrangement. It's an ongoing project with no logical completion point and the activity benefits the whole group equally. It is very much more a "public work" and as such it's a community project rather than a trading of skills.

In essence that's what societies are, it's what extends them beyond just mutual trade relationships, it's the concept of sacrifice towards a community agreed goal, a common good.

In any large enough collection of people there will be a situation where communal decisions are made that result in a redistribution of labour, be it a collective project (build a protective wall) or a specialisation (it's so important the smith keeps working that we will help farm his field to free him up to be a farrier.)

The moment that you have to collaborate on any project where there is a reasonable expectation of equal effort and sacrifice you end up with forms of organization to ensure the work gets done. That's a key difference. Anarchist world can only stay like it is if either projects are kept small or narrowly defined with individual cost benefits. the moment you need to make a communial project, the need emerges to manage it and an authority structure is created.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Interesting stuff.

Looks like their leadership changes are in response to a common problem in IT shops. If you're a good programmer you get promoted, either by management or by the choice of your peers, depending on organization type. At some point you've reached the top of the programming ladder, and they (management or peers) reward your programming skills by making you a manager/administrator. Huh? You need a totally different skillset, which you may not have been developing, and many folks are going to fail. The answer has been putting people on either tech or IT admin/management tracks earlier.

On another subject, I'd guess one reason that their cooperative system has worked so well is that they're a pretty like-minded crowd with a single goal; open-source Linux freeware. They're not in it to make a buck - and in fact volunteer their time - but want to spread something they believe in. Also, they don't have the pressure to deliver on schedule or to make money - even enough money to pay the employees a living wage. It would be interesting to compare with a cooperative of role-playing gamers. I'd bet there are similarities.

I can see where this mode might be applied to co-ops in the for-profit world, but I suspect it would require some of the same single-mindedness and dedication to product shown by the Debian community. Artists and craftsmen should be able to do it, as could anyone with great pride or belief in the results of their work. Not so sure that this would be the right model for a dish-washer company, though.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:10 - 2 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:06 - 294 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, April 28, 2024 17:49 - 6318 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 17:44 - 24 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:47 - 3576 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:39 - 2314 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:29 - 13 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:28 - 745 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:19 - 3 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:08 - 9 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL